Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boyle v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

June 7, 2018

JAMES BOYLE, SR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v.
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

          ORDER

          TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE J.

         NOW, this 7th day of June, 2018, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification (Document No. 101), Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record (Doc. No. 112), Plaintiff's Supplemental Chart and Compendium of Source Information (Doc. Nos. 138-1, 139), Progressive's responses, and consistent with the Memorandum Opinion of June 7, 2018, it is ORDERED that the motion for class certification is GRANTED.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

         1. No. later than June 25, 2018, the plaintiff shall amend the Chart of Qualifying Vehicles (Doc. No. 138-1) consistent with the Memorandum Opinion filed on this date.

         2. This action is certified as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following class:

All persons who, from November 19, 2005 through June 7, 2018, had a policy of automobile insurance issued in Pennsylvania by Progressive Specialty Insurance Company that included comprehensive insurance coverage, and did not receive at least a ten-percent antitheft device discount on the comprehensive portion of the paid premium, and who insured a make, model and year vehicle that has as standard equipment a Pass-Key or PassLock system, SecuriLock/ PATS system, Sentry Key Immobilizer System, Nissan Vehicle Immobilizer System, or Mercedes Immobilizer system, as identified on the Amended Chart of Qualifying Vehicles.

         3. The class, as defined in the preceding paragraph, is CERTIFIED for resolution of the claims asserted in Count I of the Amended Class Action Complaint for violation of the antitheft device discount provision of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1799.1, and in Count II for breach of implied contract.

         4. The following factual and legal issues are appropriate for class treatment:

a. whether 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1799.1 mandates that Progressive give a ten percent discount on the premium for comprehensive coverage to all of its insureds whose vehicles are equipped with antitheft devices qualifying as “passive” as defined in § 1799.1(b) (“passive antitheft device discount”), even if they did not request it;
b. whether Progressive violated § 1799.1 when it failed to give the passive antitheft device discount to its insureds whose vehicles were equipped with antitheft devices qualifying as “passive” as defined in § 1799.1(b) (“qualifying devices”);
c. whether Progressive breached the implied terms of its insurance contracts with its insureds when it failed to give the passive antitheft device discount to its insureds whose vehicles were equipped with qualifying devices;
d. whether Progressive breached the implied terms of its insurance contracts with its insureds when it failed to give the passive antitheft device discount to its insureds whose vehicles were equipped with passive antitheft devices as defined in Progressive's rate filings with the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner;
e. identifying the antitheft devices that qualify as “passive” as defined in § 1799.1(b) (“qualifying devices”);
f. identifying vehicles that have a “qualifying device” installed as manufacturer's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.